Seòmar agus comataidhean

A project needs to have an end result, however long it takes. It needs to lead to something.

When we talk about this subject, we always assume that we are talking only about youngsters who are struggling—let us put it that way—but one of the categories in the table is more able pupils, and we never talk about them. They also need extra help, but for a different reason.

There is no point in collecting data for the sake of it.

That takes us back to the point that Mr Beattie raised and his very interesting table. He did not say whether it is publicly available, but it is from East Lothian. The interesting thing for me is that the table lists 25 categories of reasons for pupils getting additional support for learning, and individual teachers are expected to pick up on all those things.

How long will it take to do it? That is not a trick question. I am not trying to catch you out. Will it be one year or two years—what do you think?

This is a hefty group with quite a lot of amendments. I have lodged a number of amendments that deal exclusively with students. I mentioned the cross-party group on housing, which has produced another report, this time on student housing and homelessness. The report followed on from the very powerful presentations that we heard from students and from meetings that I had with students and student organisations. The minister was at at least one of the meetings of the cross-party group and also heard those presentations. The report included some challenging recommendations for Government, which led to my amendments that we are considering today, along with others that were considered by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.

My strong view is that, if we are to have rent controls, students ought to be covered by that system. I would love to hear from anyone who has a contrary view, and if anyone does, they can intervene on me at any point. The committee correctly identified in its excellent stage 1 report that students have been overlooked by the bill, but we can rectify that quite easily.

I turn to my amendments and others in the group. Section 1 of the bill deals with the designation of rent control areas. Amendment 51 provides a definition of “student residential tenancy”, namely that it is a tenancy where the tenant has

“the right to occupy the let property while the tenant is a student”.

The amendment adds student residential tenancies to the definition of a relevant tenancy so that student tenancies might be considered in the rent control provisions that are contained in the bill.

Amendments 52 to 58 insert the word “student” into various sections of the bill. Amendment 52 says that the report that councils send to ministers recommending that an area be subject to rent controls should also include student tenancies. Amendment 53 provides that student tenancies must be included when a minister makes a decision about designating a rent control area. Amendment 54 includes students in a subsection that makes reference to private residential tenancies, this time for regulations that designate an area as a rent control area. Amendment 55 seeks to explicitly include student tenancies under the type of tenancy that is included in the definition of a rent control measure.

When I close the debate on this group, I will have more to say about this then, but the process has been immensely frustrating. I feel the pain of Mr Greer and Ms Duncan-Glancy. Many of the amendments have been lodged for some time now. I lodged my amendments ages ago, and as soon as I could.

The minister has seen them. If he is hiding behind the review group, it should have seen the amendments—and that applies not only to my amendments but to others. The review group and the minister have had time to consider the amendments. Why has that not been done?

All that work should have happened already, frankly.

That is entirely right. I am clear on what I would do if I was voting, which I am not. I would be trying to get the minister to engage with the matter in a way that he has not done to date. To be honest, it is a pretty extraordinary situation. My position is clear and I have outlined what I think. I had hoped that the minister would have come to committee today to say, “I am not sure about that amendment. Maybe that amendment needs a bit of work and we’ll engage with the review group. I will ensure that MSPs can meet the review group, maybe collectively, and that, together, we can agree on some amendments to deal with the issues for stage 3,” but he has not done that. My strong suggestion to the committee members—I cannot really make it any stronger or clearer—is that, if you can bring yourselves to, you should support most of the amendments in the group.

If you just look at the revaluation issue, it is indeed quite absurd, but the bill might not be the place to deal with that. Frankly, Parliament has been playing around with the issue for far too long. I think that it falls into the “too difficult” pile, and that is probably why parties will not deal with it. However, the issue needs to be dealt with, and it is probably one for the next session of Parliament. I am sorry to say that, Mr Greer, but that is the reality.

I hear what the minister is saying—I accept that people can graduate long after finishing their course—but does he accept the general principle of what I am trying to achieve, irrespective of the details?